Palestine–Europe Conference Highlights Rising Pressure and Academic Delegitimization in France

The “Palestine and Europe: The Weight of the Past and Contemporary Dynamics” conference was held on November 13–14 in Paris at the CAREP Paris Center, with the participation of researchers and academics from European, Arab, and American institutions. Through multiple scholarly sessions, the conference examined the historical and political evolution of the Europe–Palestine relationship, the trajectories of European colonialism, the roles of European institutions, networks of influence, and campaigns aimed at silencing Palestinian voices.

The conference was ultimately held outside the Collège de France after facing a series of coordinated pressures in the days leading up to its original date. These pressures included media campaigns in French newspapers, actions by pro-Israel lobby groups, direct intervention by French Higher Education Minister Philippe Baptiste, and mobilization led by networks of academics and lawyers. The pressure culminated in the institute’s decision to cancel the event, citing “public safety” concerns.

Although the conference was moved to an alternative venue and held as scheduled, delegitimization efforts continued from media outlets, public figures, and French organizations, which presented the conference outside its academic context and linked it to political and ideological accusations, without addressing its research content or planned scholarly sessions. Misbar traces the sequence of pressures, the main actors involved, and the accompanying media discourse before and after the cancellation, leading up to the conference’s convening outside the Collège de France.

Le Point’s Coverage of the Palestine–Europe Conference Before Its Cancellation

On November 7, the French magazine Le Point published an article about the “Palestine and Europe” conference, originally scheduled at the Collège de France, portraying it as a controversial, “high-risk” event.

From its headline—“At the Collège de France, a High-Risk Pro-Palestinian Seminar”—the piece framed the conference in a political and security context rather than an academic one, signaling to readers that it was a sensitive matter rather than a scholarly event.

The article repeatedly used delegitimizing language toward any academic discussion on Palestine, labeling the conference as “anti-Zionist” and exhibiting “colonial thinking,” presenting these characterizations as ready-made accusations rather than engaging with its topics or research methodology.

It questioned whether the event carried a “pro-Hamas bias,” citing old statements and positions of certain researchers outside the conference to preemptively assign a political orientation. Past personal positions of some speakers were highlighted without reference to their academic backgrounds or the content of the papers they intended to present.

Instead of analyzing session programs or scholarly content, the article relied on political labels and ideological impressions, invoking publications by François Burgat and statements from U.N. rapporteur Francesca Albanese in contexts unrelated to the conference or its methodology.

The piece also used terms such as “radical,” “lacking academic rigor,” “pro-Palestinian alignment,” and “infiltration,” reinforcing a stereotypical portrayal of the conference as a threat to the “French academic platform” and laying the groundwork for administrative intervention, while offering little space for responses from organizers or clarifications from participants.

Collège de France: Cancellation Aimed at Safeguarding Staff, Attendees, and Public Order

Following the controversy sparked by the Le Point article, pressure escalated to the institutional level at the Collège de France. The institute canceled the conference originally scheduled for November 13–14, which was to include Professor Henry Laurens, head of the Contemporary History of the Arab World department.

The decision came amid growing political and media pressure, beginning with the Le Point article and followed by coverage in other French outlets, alongside actions from prominent academics and pro-Israel lobby groups.

On November 9, the institute issued an official statement signed by its director, Thomas Romer, reaffirming its commitment to “complete neutrality” on political and ideological matters. The statement emphasized that “being a platform for knowledge and its dissemination does not imply support for or endorsement of any form of activism.”

It noted that, in light of the mounting controversy, the scientific committee had been advised to hold the conference “behind closed doors,” but that option was deemed unworkable. The statement stressed that the institute has a responsibility to “ensure the safety of staff and attendees and prevent any threat to public order.”

The statement concluded by announcing the final decision: “Given these circumstances, the director of the Collège de France, as the authority responsible for the safety of property and individuals and for ensuring the proper conduct of events held at the institute, is obliged to cancel the event scheduled for November 13–14.”

Arab Center, History Chair at Collège de France: Cancellation Sets a Dangerous Precedent

The Paris branch of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, in partnership with the Chair of Contemporary History of the Arab World at the Collège de France, issued a joint statement condemning the institute’s decision to cancel the conference.

The statement said the cancellation followed the Le Point article and subsequent direct pressures from the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research—pressures openly acknowledged by Minister Philippe Baptiste under the pretext of “ensuring scientific rigor.”

It stressed that the conference had been organized according to established academic procedures and was set to include researchers from leading institutions, including the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, the University of Amsterdam, the National Institute for Oriental Languages and Civilizations (INALCO), University College London, the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), and Queen Mary University of London.

The statement emphasized the conference topics reflected a wide range of disciplines and methodologies while fully respecting scholarly diversity. It said accusations of anti-Semitism or political activism against the participants were “baseless and unfair,” noting that their work had been peer-reviewed and published in leading academic journals.

It warned that conflating academic inquiry with ideological pressure undermines the independence of knowledge, and that the Collège de France’s response to political influence threatens an institution with a centuries-old intellectual legacy.

The statement also highlighted the precedent the cancellation sets, potentially allowing any “sensitive” academic event to be subjected to censorship driven by controversial articles or political statements. It concluded by reaffirming that the conference followed a historical and critical methodology, adding that “confusing this academic approach with political debate reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the social sciences and represents a troubling misuse of the term ‘scientific.’”

Who Pressured Collège de France To Cancel the Conference?

In a report published on November 10, L’Express detailed the pressures that led to the cancellation of the “Palestine and Europe” conference at the Collège de France.

The report highlighted objections from the Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions (CRIF), whose president said the event “was not being conducted properly.” The International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA) also criticized the conference, calling it an “anti-Zionist forum” and announcing its intention to urge the Minister of Higher Education to intervene. France’s chief rabbi joined the objections, describing the conference as “blatantly biased.”

L’Express reported that Minister of Higher Education Philippe Baptiste backed the cancellation, calling it a “responsible step,” while the Higher Education Union argued that the ministry had bowed to external political pressures. The episode reflected a wide network of pressure, including pro-Israel groups, which ultimately prompted a direct government response, amid objections from some academics and left-wing lawmakers.

In a post on November 9, Baptiste emphasized that defending academic freedom means safeguarding free, respectful, and pluralistic debate. He said he had conveyed this message to the director of the Collège de France in the preceding days. Baptiste added that, in its planned format, the conference risked failing to meet these standards and that its cancellation represented a responsible decision by an institution expected to uphold excellence in knowledge while providing a space for open discussion across all intellectual currents, within the framework of the law and republican values.

French Right-Wing Media React to ‘Palestine and Europe’ Conference Cancellation at Collège de France

The campaign of opposition to the “Palestine and Europe” conference did not end with its cancellation, nor was it limited to the L’Obs article and the media campaign preceding it. Right-wing French media continued to portray the event as anti-Zionist, anti-colonial, and a threat to Jewish memory. A clear example is a November 10 article in Tribune Juive, which used highly charged, symbolic language—opening with a Victor Hugo quote about “opening the gates of hell”—to frame the conference as a threat rather than an academic event.

The article assumed from the start that the conference was a platform for incitement and hatred. Its hosting at a public institution like the Collège de France was depicted as a breach of academic neutrality. Participants—including Dr. Azmi Bishara, Dr. Henry Laurens, Gilbert Achcar, and Alain Gresh—were presented solely within a political context, with no reference to their research, scholarly contributions, or the content of the papers they were scheduled to present.

The piece conflated three separate spheres—political criticism of Israel, anti-Zionism, and anti-Semitism—portraying any academic discussion of Israeli policies or European colonial history in Palestine as a direct threat to Jewish memory and French Republican values. This framing justified describing the conference as an institutional platform for hate, even including warnings about “state-level anti-Semitism,” without addressing the sessions’ actual content or scientific aims.

The article repeatedly used terms like “incitement,” “hatred,” “recruitment,” and “institutional deviation,” while omitting references to the papers, research methodology, or the nature of the discussions. It ignored the fact that the conference included internationally recognized scholars, instead framing the event as part of an ideological battle against the French state.

Similarly, Marianne focused on the political and media controversy rather than the academic substance. Its article, titled “Anti-Zionist Exhibit: Amid Controversy, Collège de France Cancels Palestine Conference,” highlighted the Collège’s stated reasons for cancellation—“safety” and “security”—terms frequently used in coverage of Palestine-related events. The piece amplified statements from Minister of Higher Education Philippe Baptiste, who called the cancellation a “responsible step,” and referenced the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA), which labeled the conference an “anti-Zionist exhibit,” merging political critique with the academic domain.

Marianne also recycled L’Obs’s characterization of the conference as a “pro-Palestinian closed forum,” highlighting a session titled “Zionism as a European Colonial Expansion Project” without situating it in its research context. While the article noted participation from figures such as Dominique de Villepin and Francesca Albanese, it offered no discussion of the academic content, methodology, or objectives, instead amplifying the right-wing narrative.

The coverage reflects a broader pattern: transforming an academic conference into a political battleground, where scholarly debate on Palestine is recast as a security and ideological issue rather than a legitimate field of research.

Academics and Lawyers Mount Pressure Campaign Against the Conference

Alongside media campaigns, Collège de France faced organized pressure from lawyers and academics linked to the Racism and Anti-Semitism Research Network (RRA), according to Blast – Le souffle de l’info, which reviewed a series of internal emails exchanged among network members. The messages revealed a coordinated effort to delegitimize the conference and influence the decision on whether it would proceed.

In one email cited by the site, lawyer Deborah Gorno described the network’s efforts as instrumental in the cancellation, writing to more than 100 academics in the group: “We sent a message to the person in charge at Collège de France and copied the Minister of Higher Education… I believe our message, along with all the other initiatives, contributed to this cancellation. Well done, everyone.”

Founded in 2019 and based at the University of Picardy, the RRA presents itself as a contractual alliance connecting research units from both the public and private sectors. Its leadership claims about 500 members who communicate regularly, organize conferences, and coordinate research efforts.

Emails obtained by the site show members expressing satisfaction over the conference’s cancellation. Danielle Delmire of the University of Lille wrote, “I don’t regret the cancellation of this conference.” Véronique Benzakan from Paris-Saclay added, “Well done… I hope this sets a precedent in our institutions. Very courageous.” Paul Audy from Paris-Descartes wrote, “The idea of inviting politicians to an academic conference—even if biased, harmful, or nonpluralistic—will be less appealing.”

Network members suggested that the Le Point article contributed to a sense of “moral panic” in some circles. Retired political scientist Pierre-André Taguieff was quoted saying the conference represented “another sign of the gradual legitimization of anti-Jewish activities, normalized under the guise of anti-racism and anti-colonialism.”

In another email dated November 8, Gorno told network members that she had contacted the Minister of Higher Education “to denounce holding this conference in a public institution under his supervision.”

The emails also show that the network’s scrutiny extended beyond the conference itself to researchers working on Palestinian issues. On November 8, Emmanuel Droua, director of the Institute of Political Studies in Strasbourg, expressed concern over CNRS researcher Stéphanie Lat Abdallah being invited to his institution and asked the network for any information “that would allow him to alert the university president.”

Responses from network members were sharp. Régine Winterreiter of the University of Paris wrote that Lat Abdallah “clearly is a pro-Palestinian activist, and all her work revolves around this topic, as well as her public appearances.” Évelyne Chayès of CNRS described the researcher’s statements as “unscientific, historically inaccurate, and unverified.”

Academic sources told the site that some RRA members hold influential positions within the French academic hierarchy, giving them the ability to shape debates and silence dissenting voices. One source said, “They have significant influence… and many ways to exert it. That’s why many remain silent out of fear.” Another added, “They do not want anything related to the recognition of genocide to be heard.”

Palestine in European Consciousness: Upholding Academic Freedom

The “Palestine and Europe” conference opened with remarks from Salam Kawakibi, director of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies in Paris. He emphasized that examining Europe’s relationship with Palestine is essential to understanding historical and political transformations in the region. Kawakibi also addressed Collège de France’s decision to cancel the conference and the preceding campaign, noting that the attacks came from far-right actors and French digital platforms.

Kawakibi stressed that the conference is strictly academic and that defending its convening goes beyond Palestine, encompassing the protection of academic freedom and the right to debate without intimidation.

In the second opening address, Dr. Henry Laurens, professor of Modern Arab History at Collège de France, provided a historical overview of Palestine in European consciousness and politics. He focused on the nineteenth century, when European attention centered on protecting holy sites amid great-power rivalries, alongside regional economic transformations. Laurens also discussed the early organized Jewish migrations to Palestine in the late nineteenth century, noting their connection to European privileges and colonial projects. He emphasized that the Zionist movement, from its inception, sought alliances with major European powers to advance its project amid regional competition.

Dr. Azmi Bishara, general director of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, delivered a lecture on the historical dimensions of Europe-Palestine relations, highlighting the importance of considering the broader Mediterranean context. Bishara traced the rise of the Zionist movement in Europe in the late nineteenth century, linking it to the Jewish Enlightenment (“Haskalah”) and its transformations. He also examined European attitudes toward colonial projects in Palestine and highlighted a new generation in Europe and the United States advocating rights-based approaches and criticizing double standards in addressing the Palestinian question.

The second session, titled “Zionism as a European Colonial Expansion Project,” featured Rina Cohen Muller, Italian historian Lorenzo Kamel, and researcher Michal Segan. It was followed by sessions on “Palestinians under the British Mandate” and “European Institutions: A History of Failure.” The first day concluded with a session titled “Toward Unified European Foreign Policies?”

Day two opened with a discussion on Europe’s colonial past and the historical responsibilities it entails, alongside the development of modern solidarity movements with Palestine. Participants highlighted the impact of the Holocaust on shaping European policies and how this history was politically leveraged to justify support for Israel, connecting it to the legacy of European colonialism and new forms of popular solidarity across the continent.

The second session, “Influence Networks and Economic Interests,” examined the complex relations between the European Union and Israel, including the role of pro-Israel lobby networks within European institutions, particularly those that pressured Collège de France and contributed to the conference’s cancellation.

The third session, “Silencing Palestinian Voices,” argued that 2023 marked a turning point in campaigns suppressing voices supporting Palestine. This was followed by the fourth session, “Europe’s Responsibility: From Oslo’s Failure to Gaza’s Destruction.”

The conference concluded with a plenary titled “How Palestine is Reshaping Europe,” addressing the effects of the war in Gaza on European policies and public opinion, and the future role of the Palestinian cause in Europe’s political and academic landscape.

Read More

Lobby Groups Intensify Efforts To Shape Media Narrative for Israel During Gaza War

How Did an Israeli Lobby Shape the Editorial Policy for Western Media?